(02-14-2018, 09:56 PM)TJBender Wrote: We do have a mental health issue. Good thing Reagan had the foresight to kick all the loonies out of the hospitals, right? For a guy who did such a great job as President, that's his biggest misstep.

I'm not sure how that matters to this case. Those in hospitals in the 1980s don't make up the majority of killers today. 

Reasonable exceptions, like someone picking up a deceased police officer's gun to shoot the person that shot the officer, are understood, as is the notion that a registration would extend to immediate family. Of course, a 12-year-old using her dad's gun would get both of them sent to jail for a long time. My thoughts are not meant to be an exercise in finding excuses. They're meant to be a solution with teeth that, if enforced, leaves ownership of guns alone because, frankly, Americans do have the right to guns, and I support the Second Amendment believe it or not. The problem is that the laws we have aren't enforced, and they apparently aren't enough of a deterrent to keep "responsible" gun owners and dealers from irresponsibly letting firearms get into the hands of those who shouldn't have them. You want to bear arms? Cool. Be ready to surrender other rights to gain that one.

Of course it's reasonable to pick up another person's gun if it's to defend themselves from a killer. My point is that how do you legislate exact moments in time when it's appropriate to use someone else's weapon in constantly changing scenarios. You can't legislate for every single situation. I agree that they aren't enforced appropriately, but that falls on the court system. I believe the court system holds most of the responsibility here (aside from the killers). They allow too many second chances for people that give no indication that they've earned it.

How would more laws have stopped the shooter in Parkland? Remains to be seen, but I promise you that if the person he got/stole/bought that AR-15 from were sent to prison for 25 to life for negligent homicide and accessory to first degree murder, it would make others think twice about how they secure the guns registered in their name or who they give/sell the guns registered in their name to.

So, you'd imprison someone for legally selling a gun to someone that does something illegal with it? You can't hold that standard for anything else. Why would a gun be any different? Is the owner of a car responsible for involuntary manslaughter is the driver who borrowed it killed someone? That standard could be applied to almost anything. 

Guns are like drugs in that regard. Punishing the end user accomplishes little to stop the problem. It's when you move up the chain and start getting the people who are supplying the end user that you start to make an impact, only it's magnified here because it's not just drug dealers you're putting the fear of God into. If Bill down the street goes to jail for six months because his kid took the family pistol out from the master bedroom and robbed a Stab-N-Go, I bet you anything that everyone else on that block is thinking long and hard about the way they secure their own firearm.

Bill didn't commit a crime. Bill didn't want rob or shoot anyone. He isn't responsible for the actions of another.

I think where you're short-sighted is that the punishment shouldn't be exclusive to gun-related crimes. These people don't just start robbing / killing people. They start with home burglaries, vehicle burglaries, etc. Then they'll be caught just carrying a stolen gun. Then it escalates into something where someone is hurt or killed. The problem is that courts go easy on them until they hurt someone. Two or three  months in jail is nothing to someone willing to kill another person. There is no deterrence for criminals.